Mac the Knife

MLB Relocation? Naw...

Recommended Posts

That's the right thing to do. It's effectively in its twenties, and as 1960s construction, probably has better bones than newer facilities, concretecrackingatnewyankeestadium.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me stand corrected. Peter Angelos isn't a giant schmuck..........he's a super duper mega galactic schmuck. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, the admiral said:

@Still MIGHTY, is there any news on the Angels desiring a new stadium? I read that they can opt out of their lease at the end of this season.

 

1 hour ago, LMU said:

I can tag in here.

 

The team isn't opting out and is committed until at least 2029.  The Tustin proposal fell on its face and they have nowhere else that they can move into lest they go back to being the Dodgers' tenants.

 

LINK

 

Yeah, LMU pretty much covered it.

 

Theyre set for a bit, and really, there’s nowhere else for them to go currently. They’ve poked around in all the available areas (Tustin, Irvine, LA proper, in their own parking lot in Anaheim). And as you’ve seen elsewhere in California, there’s no way in hell theyre getting public money, especially in Anaheim.

 

It is an older stadium, but yes it does have that 90s facelift and plenty of cosmetic things that have been updated since (brand new scoreboards this season for instance). It does show its age in certain ways, but not in any functional way that makes me think it needs to be rebuilt yet.

 

There’s a little bit of time before they have to think about it again, but I’d wager they’re staying exactly where they are. Honestly, you just have to look at Disney, and you’ll see that the Angels will manage it when the time comes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/30/2018 at 6:33 PM, OnWis97 said:

Between Atlanta and Texas, I am nervous that 20 is becoming the new 30. 

 

As am I.  

 

Then I think we might be closer to Miller Park’s replacement than its opening night, and I smile. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Gothamite said:

 

As am I.  

 

Then I think we might be closer to Miller Park’s replacement than its opening night, and I smile. 


What do you have against Miller Park?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, NicDB said:

What do you have against Miller Park?

 

Only that it is a terrible ballpark. 

 

First of all, it’s not a great place to watch a ballgame.  Very few seats afford a full view of the action, including the press box.

 

It’s soulless, with its brick-and-sage color scheme apparently designed to avoid team colors at all costs.  The interior layout is odd, with large patches of unused space just sitting there, like the industrial wasteland outside the club shop in left field.  And all the while, the outfield is so cramped that they don’t have proper bleachers.  The scoreboard/batter’s eye in center is so close to the action that it feels bent and artificially pushed-in, like a car with a dented front end or the flat face of a Persian cat.  The park simply has too much empty space in some places, and not enough room to breathe in others. 

 

And then there’s that roof.  Looming over the action even when open, it dominates the park.  It casts terrible shadows.  The support structure means that the outfield always feels closed and claustrophobic, even when the sliding panels are actually open.  

 

I understand why they built Miller Park.  I’m glad that they did build Miller Park.  But viewed on its own merits Miller Park falls very flat, and I’ll be very glad when it’s finally replaced. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/2/2018 at 10:42 PM, Still MIGHTY said:

 

 

Yeah, LMU pretty much covered it.

 

Theyre set for a bit, and really, there’s nowhere else for them to go currently. They’ve poked around in all the available areas (Tustin, Irvine, LA proper, in their own parking lot in Anaheim). And as you’ve seen elsewhere in California, there’s no way in hell theyre getting public money, especially in Anaheim.

 

It is an older stadium, but yes it does have that 90s facelift and plenty of cosmetic things that have been updated since (brand new scoreboards this season for instance). It does show its age in certain ways, but not in any functional way that makes me think it needs to be rebuilt yet.

 

There’s a little bit of time before they have to think about it again, but I’d wager they’re staying exactly where they are. Honestly, you just have to look at Disney, and you’ll see that the Angels will manage it when the time comes.

 

Sacramento Angels FTW. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe Scott Walker will close a couple universities to build the Brewers a new park in Waukesha.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Gothamite said:

 

Only that it is a terrible ballpark. 

 

I wouldn't go that far.  I grew up going to County Stadium once a year because the Twins had a terrible ballpark.  And I'll always like County Stadium better (nostalgia and all) but it's probably better in many ways.  The one thing you did not mention about why I don't like Miller Park is it's off-ramp location but given the draw that the tailgaiting is, it's hard to imagine the Brewers ever ending up in a downtown setting.

 

 

First of all, it’s not a great place to watch a ballgame.  Very few seats afford a full view of the action, including the press box.

I actually feel that I've had good luck with the sight lines.  Superior-in-all-other-ways Target Field struggles with that as you get down the lines (the seats aim toward shallow center).

 

However, after that, I am with you.

 

It’s soulless, with its brick-and-sage color scheme apparently designed to avoid team colors at all costs.  The interior layout is odd, with large patches of unused space just sitting there, like the industrial wasteland outside the club shop in left field.  And all the while, the outfield is so cramped that they don’t have proper bleachers.  The scoreboard/batter’s eye in center is so close to the action that it feels bent and artificially pushed-in, like a car with a dented front end or the flat face of a Persian cat.  The park simply has too much empty space in some places, and not enough room to breathe in others.  

It is soulless and the view toward the outfield is tacky at best: parking lot, highway, beer factories (or something) behind a tacky facade.  I grew up going to the Metrodome, so I know sterile.  It's not Metrodome-bad, but it's not good.

 

And then there’s that roof.  Looming over the action even when open, it dominates the park.  It casts terrible shadows.  The support structure means that the outfield always feels closed and claustrophobic, even when the sliding panels are actually open.  

 

I've only been to one other retractable roof park - Seattle.  The roof was open. And in Seattle, I was immediately struck by how much less obvious the existence of the roof was versus on a day when it's open at Miller Park.

 

I am pretty sure it was the first place I ever went to with open concourses, which means, to that point, the newest place I'd been was "New Comiskey."  So it had a lot of comforts I was not used to.  Again, I think the sight lines are quite good and I love brat from a Brewers game.  But it looks like the Death Star from the outside, it's located in a giant parking lot that takes longer to drive out of than it takes me to wait for a LRT train and get home from a Twins game, and is a bit sterile on the inside.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, OnWis97 said:

I grew up going to County Stadium once a year because the Twins had a terrible ballpark.  And I'll always like County Stadium better (nostalgia and all) but it's probably better in many ways.  The one thing you did not mention about why I don't like Miller Park is it's off-ramp location but given the draw that the tailgaiting is, it's hard to imagine the Brewers ever ending up in a downtown setting.

 

True, but given the location was never in question, they didn’t have to build quite so bad a ballpark there.  

 

I look forward to the next ballpark built in Miller Park’s parking lot. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think every ballpark has those sightline issues as you go down the lines, though. Weirdly the best sightlines I've seen, from a foul territory but past the bases area, was in left field at Fenway Park, while the very worst example is right field at Fenway Park.

 

I haven't been to Miller Park, but the roof shadows are absolutely brutal. Worst example of that unfortunate retractable-roof side effect at least in images.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In a perfect world, Milwaukee's stadium grounds and festival grounds would swap places, and the Brewers would be playing in an awesome Lakefront facility that's a cool hybrid of what they have in Seattle and San Francisco, with enough space to accommodate tailgating.

But beyond that pipe dream, my beefs with Miller Park are pretty minor.  The upper deck is too high and Bernie's stein is gone.  Otherwise I can understand why it was built the way it was.  Not like a brewery and a bunch of freeway spurs make for a neat backdrop, hence the huge walls.  Unless a better, more centralized location is chosen, I'd be surprised if calls to replace Miller Park came anytime soon.  To where a run like Dodgers/Angels/Kaufmann is not out of the question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, NicDB said:

But beyond that pipe dream, my beefs with Miller Park are pretty minor.  The upper deck is too high and Bernie's stein is gone.  Otherwise I can understand why it was built the way it was.  Not like a brewery and a bunch of freeway spurs make for a neat backdrop, hence the huge walls.  Unless a better, more centralized location is chosen, I'd be surprised if calls to replace Miller Park came anytime soon.  To where a run like Dodgers/Angels/Kaufmann is not out of the question.

 

The only thing that will keep Miller Park around that long is a reluctance to spend money on its replacement.  Which the Brewers may or may not accept. 

 

County Stadium managed to do just fine as an open-air park with the same backdrop.  It’s not about views, it’s about open air and sunshine, two things the roof and outfield infrastructure actively work to keep out.

 

They didn’t have to build such a bad ballpark just because it had to be on that spot.  The location didn’t make them choose a generic interior, or an oppressive roof, or add patches of empty unused space in the concourses. Those were all specific choices, and those could all have been avoided with a better-designed ballpark on the same piece of real estate. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd say the view is half the attraction to many modern ballparks (Pittsburgh and San Francisco immediately come to mind).

 

If the baseball season only ran from June to early September, I might agree with you. But wintery weather outside of that time frame isn't out of the question in Wisconsin. I remember going to some brutally windy April games at County Stadium where I'd be shocked to learn they even sold enough tickets to pay for the light bill. The big walls at Miller Park stop the wind (and snow, when it happens) from ruining the fan experience.

 

I would also imagine most Brewers fans don't mind watching a game in the shade after tailgating considering Milwaukee summers are some of the most clingy and unconfortably humid you can ever experience.  I know everyone loves to romanticize fans braving the elements, but at modern ticket prices, I actually like knowing I'll be fighting the weather on a very limited basis.

 

Is Miller Park perfect? Not at all. But even the aforementioned parks in San Francisco and Pittsburgh have their flaws. We probably won't see eye to eye on this one, but I just can't buy the narrative that Miller Park is a terrible place to see a game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would you take Miller Park if they just removed the roof and outfield roof apparatus? I've always thought it was a cool looking park outside of the colossal roof hanging over it. I haven't been to Miller Park, but every time the Reds have played there with the roof open Chris Welsh seems to comment on the weird shadows the batters have to contend with. 

 

remote.jpg.ashx?mode=crop&width=1920&hei

 

That roof is HUGE, but I think I'd take it if it meant I never had to worry about the weather, which is what I miss about going to Mariners games. I've had terrible weather luck with the Reds the last couple of years. Sitting outside is cool, but is it worth the rain delays? I'd have to think about it. 

 

Again, never been there, but I have been to Chase Field, which Miller Park looks better than, open or closed. Chase Field made me feel like I was sitting in a giant shoebox.

 

The retractable roof ideal is Safeco Field, which still has the Independence Day looking roof hovering over the right field bleachers, but it's out of the way enough that you still feel like you're outdoors when you're in the stadium. And when the roof is closed the whole place is not enclosed so you still get the breeze. It's an odd sensation. 

 

safeco10855.jpg

 

What makes theirs work is visible in this photo. Looking from this angle you can't tell this stadium has a retractable roof. I don't think you can take a picture from anywhere inside Minute Maid, Miller, Chase, Skydome, Marlins et al without getting the roof or roof apparatus in the shot. Theirs is more like a ballpark with a moving canopy while the others are like an enclosed box that has a roof. They've all tried to make it more outdoorsy with moving windows and stuff, but it doesn't really matter when the structure is constantly hanging above you. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, NicDB said:

I would also imagine most Brewers fans don't mind watching a game in the shade after tailgating considering Milwaukee summers are some of the most clingy and unconfortably humid you can ever experience.

 

Oh, Milwaukee summers are fine, you big baby. We're by a big lake! Go to St. Louis in July, it's like crawling up a fat guy's ass.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, NicDB said:

Is Miller Park perfect? Not at all. But even the aforementioned parks in San Francisco and Pittsburgh have their flaws. We probably won't see eye to eye on this one, but I just can't buy the narrative that Miller Park is a terrible place to see a game.

 

It really is, though.  I’m a huge homer and want it to be a fantastic ballpark, but the sooner it’s replaced the better.

 

I don’t mind a roof for inclement April weather. I mind being punished with bad shadows and claustrophobic outfield walls for every other game.  They could have chosen a better roof design.

 

And you still haven’t tried to defend the generic color scheme, empty concourses, cramped outfield, lack of bleachers, or bad sight lines. 😛 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, the admiral said:

Oh, Milwaukee summers are fine, you big baby. We're by a big lake!

 

 

yeah, that one I don’t get. 

 

Sure, the spring starts off chilly.  But who really  needs to be protected from summer evenings?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, McCarthy said:

Miller Park

 

remote.jpg.ashx?mode=crop&width=1920&hei

 

 

Safeco Field

 

safeco10855.jpg

 

These two pictures really tell the story.  Look at that open outfield....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't have too many grievances with Miller Park but when they close the "blinds" in addition to the roof, it gets pretty Troppy:

 

2078.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now